The local turn in integration policies: why French cities differ

Abstract

This article examines how three major French cities designed their immigrant incorporation policies in the early 21st century. While political and administrative structures are similar in these cities, the favored approaches -integration, equality, diversity -and the importance assigned to the issue of migration differed. Four factors explain the local shape of immigrant incorporation policies: the relationship with national authorities, the mobilization of European opportunities, the capacities of civil society, and the career paths of policy officers. This qualitative research provides insights on the "local turn" of migration policy in practice. It further illustrates how French cities may overcome a national model, although their fight against ethno-racial inequalities remains weak and inconsequent.

French city networking: Drivers and rationale for national investment

“…In Lyon, Nantes and Strasbourg, the arrival of new Socialist mayors and left‐wing municipal majorities – respectively in 2001 in Lyon and Nantes and in 2008 in Strasbourg – was congruent with the implementation of new modes of policy intervention towards migrants and ethnic minorities (Flamant, 2020). The municipalities created teams to deal either specifically with the issues of integration and of local citizenship as in Nantes with the Mission Intégration, Egalité, Citoyenneté (Integration, Equality and Citizenship Unit) or to include the migration issue in the broader policy framework of non‐discrimination as in Lyon with the Mission Egalité (Equality Unit) or in Strasbourg in 2014 with the Mission de Prévention et de Lutte contre les Discriminations (Unit for Preventing and Fighting Discrimination).…”

“…The municipalities created teams to deal either specifically with the issues of integration and of local citizenship as in Nantes with the Mission Intégration, Egalité, Citoyenneté (Integration, Equality and Citizenship Unit) or to include the migration issue in the broader policy framework of non‐discrimination as in Lyon with the Mission Egalité (Equality Unit) or in Strasbourg in 2014 with the Mission de Prévention et de Lutte contre les Discriminations (Unit for Preventing and Fighting Discrimination). Municipal civil servants in charge of integration or non‐discrimination policies developed or reinforced municipal tools, such as Councils of Foreigners, translation facilities in municipal services, revisal of the municipal recruitment process, meant to tackle issues faced by settled migrants and ethnic minorities (Flamant, 2020). For irregular migrants, the municipalities endorsed a case‐by‐case approach and accorded some help (mainly for families) without making it visible.…”

“…Specific issues, such as housing and training, faced by migrants were not a core priority of the municipalities. However, the treatment of migration‐related issues remained constrained by the weak legitimacy of local elected representatives and civil servants involved and the dilution of migration and ethnic issues into broader anti‐discrimination policies (Bereni et al., 2020; Flamant, 2020).…”

“…Nevertheless, there is still room to understand the motives of cities in their networking, especially French municipalities that have received little scholarly attention in the international literature (some exceptions as Flamant, 2020; Downing, 2015; Martinez‐Arino et al., 2018). Although scholars have underlined the rising importance of cities in the global management of migration (Thouez, 2020; Lacroix, Spencer, this special issue), this paper explores the drivers behind national rather than international city networks.…”

European city network on migrants with irregular status: Exploring functions and outcomes on a sensitive policy issue

“…Oomen goes so far as to suggest that “Teaming up in the context of networks allows cities to decouple their local policies from those developed nationally” (2019, p. 22). Yet, the local turn is neither a uniform process nor consistent across the integration policy domain (Flamant, 2020; Gebhardt, 2016; Van Breugel, 2020), suggesting that the impact of networks on multi‐level policy‐making may be more varied than this would suggest.…”